You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1 • Hacker News Board

Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1

#31

Post by rmsrmsrms » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:10 AM UTC

nemo1618 wrote: post #29

wozniacki wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a most pertinent debate to introduce Roger Scruton's most excellent & eminently watchable "Why Beauty Matters"[1] I don't know how much the readership of HN is versed in contemporary American popular culture's obsession with the round rejection of traditional ideas of beauty. I would go as far as to say that the current leitmotif seems to be 'embrace ugliness & dullness' for the sake of it and little else. Th…

One of the things I love about art is that it is almost defined by its resistance to definition. You say "art has to be beautiful," and art says "no, fuck you, a urinal can be art." You say "well, art at least has to mean something," and art says "no, fuck you, a big red square can be art." Personally, I'm hoping to see a post-ironic return to traditional values of beauty, purely as a way of flipping the bird to a so…

Art expresses something ineffable about the self of the artist. Or at least this works for me, so far.

Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1

#32

Post by bloat » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:45 AM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #2

> Instead, the logo is noteworthy precisely because it has achieved critical acclaim despite, or more accurately, because of its failure to communicate. That, right there, is a damning indictment of the entire modernist project: communication achieves acclaim because it fails to communicate; art achieves acclaim because it fails to be beautiful; life achieves acclaim because it is sterile. As an aside, I love the dry…

Conrad's "Modern Times, Modern Places" is a wonderful book about modernism in art in the 20th century, if you're interested in finding out more about the whys and whos and wheres and whats of the whole business.

Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1

#33

Post by EliRivers » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 10:45 AM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #2

> Instead, the logo is noteworthy precisely because it has achieved critical acclaim despite, or more accurately, because of its failure to communicate. That, right there, is a damning indictment of the entire modernist project: communication achieves acclaim because it fails to communicate; art achieves acclaim because it fails to be beautiful; life achieves acclaim because it is sterile. As an aside, I love the dry…

Don't forget modern business.

“Yo, dude, success is failure,” Kalanick said, stopping momentarily and bumping his fist against my glass. “He who fails most — wins.”

Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1

#34

Post by tawpKek » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

elischiff wrote: post #20

jessedhillon wrote: post #8

This is basically art and design critique by a pedant. "B-b-but their actions don't match their words" is the most uninspired of all criticisms. A logo is successful if it generates results, not if it is consistent with whatever principles the critic determines a good logo should adhere to. "You Could Do Almost Anything" is basically the complaint of either unrecognized talent, or the untalented, against the institut…

> This is basically art and design critique by a pedant. "B-b-but their actions don't match their words" is the most uninspired of all criticisms. You're required to be pedantic if you want to examine something with any rigor. And yes, I'm asking that the designers provide justifications that logically cohere with the logo they are selling. > A logo is successful if it generates results, not if it is consistent with…

w/r/t the pedantic point, it seems you're a bit stuck in the prison of the literal here. Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books? I got that they were books before I read anything about it and it was a nice little moment. The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing the books. Ultimately, that seems to me like a more rewarding and memorable experience than the letters MITP + color + typeface (no disrespect, Mr. Spiekermann). MIT press's audience isn't stupid, so in my personal opinion hiding a little puzzle in the logo is a nice touch.

I mostly agree with you in your response to the second point. I don't personally find as much fault with the readability issues because the logo would pretty much always be seen in the context required to make it decipherable, but I can understand why one might take issue with that. Ultimately, its important to remember that the logo is neither the brand nor a stand alone work of art. It is only a part of a system.

I think ultimately the pitfall of the don't make me think school of design is that it is susceptible to joyless, by the numbers design but I understand its utility. Also, ironically, one could probably say the same thing about modernist design.

Your article brings up some interesting points and valid criticisms, but I just don't personally agree with all of your values when it comes to design.

Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1

#35

Post by elischiff » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:31 PM UTC

tawpKek wrote: post #34

elischiff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is basically art and design critique by a pedant. "B-b-but their actions don't match their words" is the most uninspired of all criticisms. You're required to be pedantic if you want to examine something with any rigor. And yes, I'm asking that the designers provide justifications that logically cohere with the logo they are selling. > A logo is successful if it generates results, not if it is consistent with…

w/r/t the pedantic point, it seems you're a bit stuck in the prison of the literal here. Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books? I got that they were books before I read anything about it and it was a nice little moment. The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then s…

> Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books?

If Cooper is to be believed, then yes, we should.

> The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing the books.

If there had been no pretense to the second two elements being recognizable, then it would be no problem. Abstract symbols are more than acceptable. The issue arises when designers invent a story about a representation which is hardly represented at all. Until it is explained, most readers will not get to step two or three.

> Ultimately, its important to remember that the logo is neither the brand nor a stand alone work of art. It is only a part of a system.

True, and yet it's still important to design the logo intentionally for when there is no contextual system. If the logo is to be abstract, great. If not, that's also great. But no one should fool themselves about where they are on that spectrum.

> I think ultimately the pitfall of the don't make me think school of design is that it is susceptible to joyless, by the numbers design but I understand its utility. Also, ironically, one could probably say the same thing about modernist design.

Absolutely. I don't count myself as a member of the former school. I assert designers should merely be honest about their intentions.

> Your article brings up some interesting points and valid criticisms, but I just don't personally agree with all of your values when it comes to design.

That's the fun of it!

Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1

#36

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

sloreti wrote: post #22

ebbv wrote: post #5

I think there's some valid points in this article, but there's also a valid point that kind of undermines a central thesis to this article: A logo does not need to tell you what it's for if your first viewing is out of context. In fact, 99% of good logos won't accomplish that task. The point is to be recognizable once you know what it is already, and be pleasant to look at over and over. Now, whether any of the minim…

> What makes a good logo or bad logo is mostly subjective. But not entirely. There are some choices that can inherently weaken a design. A logo should be scalable; it should look just as good on a business card as it does on the side of a plane. A color logo should be able to be translated to black & white.

True. But most of those rules can be taught over a single lecture. Why then the need for expensive designers? I suspect most of the philosophy around logo design is a simple job-security measure, whether they admit it to themselves or not. For a logo, a person with some sense of aesthetics and knowledge of aforementioned rules is more than sufficient.

Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1

#37

Post by tawpKek » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

elischiff wrote: post #35

tawpKek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

w/r/t the pedantic point, it seems you're a bit stuck in the prison of the literal here. Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books? I got that they were books before I read anything about it and it was a nice little moment. The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then s…

> Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books? If Cooper is to be believed, then yes, we should. > The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing the books. If there had been no pretense to the second two elements being recognizable, then it would be no problem. Abst…

Whoops, there was a typo in my post. I meant to write do they need that (meaning a physically accurate bookshelf) to be understood as books.

>That's the fun of it!

No, I am the arbiter of design and all who disagree with me are evil and wrong! Who moved my crown??

Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1

#38

Post by rdancer » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 5:36 AM UTC

resu_nimda wrote: post #23

Retra wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that this is taking place in the context of design as a profession . If it doesn't matter what your logo looks like because its meaning will be imbued by history, and if the form of the art isn't important, then why do you need professional logo designers? Why would you want the opinion of an 'expert' if an expert's opinion isn't important? Is the author's opinion an expert opinion? Would you pay…

The thing is, it's all so subjective. This expert does not appreciate Cooper's logo and the minimalist/Bauhaus style in general. He admits that it has received critical acclaim, and clearly many people do appreciate it, undoubtedly some who are considered experts. Who is right? Who is the true expert, the professional? By what metric is that determined? Experts and critics constantly disagree with each other, often v…

An expert is a child wise beyond his years, who sees the state of emperor's clothing for what it is. An "expert" is anyone who can persuade the presumptively adult fools that he knows something they don't.

Your argument re: experts fails because it reaches for the authority of "experts", while that's exactly what OP lampoons.